Speaking of the Senate Where the Rubber Hits the Road: Almost everyone on campus by now has become familiar with course-level Student Learning Outcomes. We have offered workshops on writing course-level SLOs, and many of you have gone forth in your divisions and services to document these SLOs and begin the assessment process. Some of you have completed assessments, analyzed results, and made adjustments for the next round of teaching your class or offering your service. And, there are a good many of you who have been doing this all along, and have just had to cut and paste a little bit of the new SLO lingo to update things. Course-level SLOs are at the "bottom" of the three levels of SLOs. The other two levels include the program level (mid- level) and the Institutional level (top level). Some colleges start their development of SLOs from the bottom up, while others go from top down. Glendale Community College basically fits the first category, as we have focused primarily on training faculty and staff to develop and implement SLOs for their courses and services. This strategy gets more people involved from the start, increases dialogue, and reduces intimidation and/or fear of what may be seen as an imposition from above. While we began at the course level, GCC has recently devoted its attention to updating and tweaking our institutional SLOs. At the institutional level, SLOs are called Core Competencies. Core Competencies are those cognitive and affective skills that we expect all students to have achieved, regardless of the major or certificate, upon leaving our college. Core Competencies are at the heart of all courses, programs, certificates, student services and administrative interactions. They are inculcated, to varying degrees, by every course, every major, every certificate program, and every student service. They are the essence of a student’s stay at our college. They are the soul of our educational program. Ultimately, they are at the center of everything we do. They are what we wish all our students will take with them upon leaving our doors. The Core Competencies Task Force of the Academic Senate was charged with the important task of formulating the Core Competencies for our institution. To do that, they had to answer a fundamental question: What cognitive skills and attitudes do we wish all students leaving Glendale Community College to have attained? Moreover, to what degree does each class, program, certificate, and service help to instill those Core Competencies? Using the Master Plan as a starting point, Alice Mecom’s task force was up to the challenge. The Core Competencies Task Force presented its report to the Academic Senate on May 1, 2006. The Academic Senate debated and then approved the Core Competencies Task Force’s recommendations. There follows the adopted Core Competencies for our institution. There are seven Core Competencies representing the quintessence of what we all do. While reading each of them, think about how and to what extent your courses, programs, certificates, or services help to promote these competencies in your students.
Institutional Core Competencies 1. Communication
Definition: Learners express themselves clearly and concisely to others in logical, well-organized papers and/or verbal presentations using documentation and quantitative tools when appropriate. Learners listen, understand, debate, and use information communicated by others.
2. Mathematical Competency/Quantitative Reasoning
Definition: Learners understand, interpret, and manipulate numeric or symbolic information; solve problems by selecting and applying appropriate quantitative methods such as arithmetic, quantitative reasoning, estimation, measurement, probability, statistics, algebra, geometry and trigonometry; and present information and construct arguments with the use of numerical and/or statistical support.
3. Information Competency
Definition: Learners recognize the need for information and define a research topic; select, access, and use appropriate sources to obtain relevant data; evaluate sources for reliability and accuracy; and use information in an ethical and legal manner.
4. Critical Thinking
Definition: Learners evaluate the credibility and significance of information, effectively interpret, analyze, synthesize, explain, and infer concepts and ideas; solve problems and make decisions; and construct and deconstruct arguments.
5. Global Awareness and Appreciation
Definition: Learners recognize and analyze the interconnectedness of global, national, and local concerns, analyzing cultural, political, social and environmental issues from multiple perspectives; they recognize the interdependence of the global environment and humanity.
6. Personal Responsibility
Definition: Learners demonstrate an understanding of the consequences, both positive and negative, of their own actions; set personal, academic and career goals; and seek and utilize the appropriate resources to reach such goals.
7. Application of Knowledge
Definition: Learners maintain, improve and transfer academic and technical skills to the workplace; demonstrate life-long learning skills by having the ability to acquire and employ new knowledge; and set goals and devise strategies for personal and professional development.
Last fall, the Core Competencies Task Force came up with a worksheet that can be used to evaluate the extent to which each Core Competency is served at the course level. Divisions would still have to meet to determine to what extent the Core Competencies are being accomplished at the program level. The expected exit levels are based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognition: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom headed a group of educational psychologists who developed a classification of levels of intellectual behavior that are important in learning. Bloom found that over 95 percent of the test questions students encounter require thinking only at the lowest possible level, the recall of information (Knowledge). Bloom identified the aforementioned six levels within the cognitive domain, from the simple recall or recognition of facts (Knowledge), the lowest level, through increasingly more complex and abstract mental levels, to the highest order which is Evaluation. Obviously, we wish to nurture each core competency at its highest intellectual level appropriate to the course. While in some cases a course may not address a particular competency at all, the goal is that by the completion of a degree or a certificate, the combination of coursework will have instilled in the student a complete exposure to all competencies. Even if a student is enrolled in just one or two classes for one semester, we can still determine to what level each competency was met based on the use of this worksheet. Below are two examples:
Sample SLOs
Student Learning Outcomes must be established at all three levels: course, program, and institutional. Furthermore, each level must align itself with the other two levels. The course level SLOs serve both the program level and institutional level SLOs. And, all of these levels go through an assessment process. We have an idea of how we can make adjustments to our courses in order to help students better achieve our course-level SLOs. How will we determine whether or not our students are meeting the Core Competencies? For example, if we fill out the worksheet (www.glendale.edu/program/SLO_Competencies%20Worksheet_FINAL1.doc) and state that our course addresses Core Competency #2a, what means of assessment can we use to prove it? These are the questions that shape the next couple of years in GCC's SLO movement, and it will take an ongoing faculty-led process to answer them. Links of Interest: · Institutional SLO Core Competency Guidelines (Worksheet): www.glendale.edu/program/SLO_Competencies%20Worksheet_FINAL1.doc
· Sample
Core Competencies from other colleges: · Sample accreditation reports with SLOs and Core Competencies www.glendale.edu/program/SLO/Left%20Coast%20Software%20Accreditation%20Data%20Bank.doc
Fun Fact: Of 16 California community colleges interviewed, only three stated that their Core Competencies are well developed and integrated into campus decision making (based on an informal survey of the Accreditation Institute). Special thanks to
the Core Competencies Task Force: Alice Mecom, Tina Andersen-Wahlberg,
Scot Spicer, Deborah Moore, Peggy Renner. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
